He said the news was “disappointing” but said the money would be spent on highways and transport projects.

The council has so far received £1.3 million in fines from its controversial restrictions on Lendal Bridge, which ban private traffic between 10am and 5.30pm daily, although £600,000 of that is off-set by the set-up and administration costs.

The trial began in August and by last week the council had issued 42,800 fines, of which 80 per cent have gone to non-residents.

Tourism leaders and many traders have opposed the restrictions, and there have been calls for parking charges in York to be reduced, to support city-centre businesses.

On February 1, city leaders waived charges at council-run car-parks and the move was praised by retailers.

“The legal advice is that the money can only be applied to certain schemes, involving highways and transport.”

Coun Merrett said reducing parking costs in York was a challenge and the council’s budgets were “substantially dependent” on car-parking income. Officials recently revealed this income was £250,000 below budget in 2012/13 and is expected to be £200,000 short of its target this year.

He said the free day earlier this month had been “a one-off”, but said: “It demonstrates we are continuing to look flexibly at the parking situation.

“We are more expensive than some of our regional competitors, but are very competitive with other historic cities which have constrained parking in the city-centre and constrained traffic networks.”

He said some of the money it may be used for road repairs forming part of the Reinvigorate York programme, which aims to improve key city-centre areas, although not for any changes to public places.

The Press revealed last week that week that of the 42,800 fines issued so far, 10,330 have been appealed against, including 6,564 successfully.

The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact, having said it will speed up bus journeys and cut pollution. Opponents claim it is causing congestion elsewhere and harming businesses and York’s reputation.

A council task group recently called for free evening parking for York residents from 5pm instead of 6pm, to encourage more people to come into the city-centre in the evening.

I hope this money goes to filling in pot holes,there getting worse.
Also can we have some going to having our green bins back now,my bin has been full since December,and I am now gardening again due to better weather.Should never have stopped them for so long!

I hope this money goes to filling in pot holes,there getting worse.
Also can we have some going to having our green bins back now,my bin has been full since December,and I am now gardening again due to better weather.Should never have stopped them for so long!courier46

The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.

The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.Garrowby Turnoff

I'm not someone who has a view either way on Lendal Bridge, but this looks like the cynical planting of a story in the Press, presumably by Councillor Merrett. As anyone who works in a big organisation knows, it's a nice get-out to blame the lawyers (or IT, or HR).

As the article states, the reason the lawyers stopped the plan was that it was against the law. Why doesn't the councillor know the law already? And if he does, why is he wasting his and his staff's time on proposals he knows are unlawful?

I'm not someone who has a view either way on Lendal Bridge, but this looks like the cynical planting of a story in the Press, presumably by Councillor Merrett. As anyone who works in a big organisation knows, it's a nice get-out to blame the lawyers (or IT, or HR).
As the article states, the reason the lawyers stopped the plan was that it was against the law. Why doesn't the councillor know the law already? And if he does, why is he wasting his and his staff's time on proposals he knows are unlawful?piemagico

Will not go on road improvements... and how did it cost £600k to set up? i procure signs and plate recognition cameras all the time and i'd would have expected half 600k was paying over the top...

do these guys just single tender to the most expensive contractor or something? imagine if only 20k people used this route.. they would be out of pocket!!! Disgraceful spending it really is... sort your act out and stop wasting everyone’s cash.

Will not go on road improvements... and how did it cost £600k to set up? i procure signs and plate recognition cameras all the time and i'd would have expected half 600k was paying over the top...
do these guys just single tender to the most expensive contractor or something? imagine if only 20k people used this route.. they would be out of pocket!!! Disgraceful spending it really is... sort your act out and stop wasting everyone’s cash.Archiebold the 1st

Coun Merrett said some money it may be used for road repairs forming part of the Reinvigorate York programme, which aims to improve key city-centre areas.

In other words Mr Merrett you will channel it into the Reinvigorate plans and use it to speed up your chosen projects and ignore all the damaged roads that need repairs around the rest of the City .

Coun Merrett said some money it may be used for road repairs forming part of the Reinvigorate York programme, which aims to improve key city-centre areas.
In other words Mr Merrett you will channel it into the Reinvigorate plans and use it to speed up your chosen projects and ignore all the damaged roads that need repairs around the rest of the City .m dee

m dee wrote:
Coun Merrett said some money it may be used for road repairs forming part of the Reinvigorate York programme, which aims to improve key city-centre areas.

In other words Mr Merrett you will channel it into the Reinvigorate plans and use it to speed up your chosen projects and ignore all the damaged roads that need repairs around the rest of the City .

They'll also be hoping for another mild winter next year so no one mentions the lack of gritting on many routes before they get kicked out in 2015...

[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote:
Coun Merrett said some money it may be used for road repairs forming part of the Reinvigorate York programme, which aims to improve key city-centre areas.
In other words Mr Merrett you will channel it into the Reinvigorate plans and use it to speed up your chosen projects and ignore all the damaged roads that need repairs around the rest of the City .[/p][/quote]They'll also be hoping for another mild winter next year so no one mentions the lack of gritting on many routes before they get kicked out in 2015...AGuyFromStrensall

Lawyers never thwarted anything, all they did was to point out the obvious, that trying to channel money away from the disastrous Lendal Bridge saga would be considered illegal.

To be honest I am surprised that it hasn't all been handed over to the 20's plenty mob.

Then again, maybe that will be next on the agenda?

[quote]Lawyers thwart York parking subsidy plan[/quote]
Lawyers never thwarted anything, all they did was to point out the obvious, that trying to channel money away from the disastrous Lendal Bridge saga would be considered illegal.
To be honest I am surprised that it hasn't all been handed over to the 20's plenty mob.
Then again, maybe that will be next on the agenda?NoNewsIsGoodNews

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.

As it actually doesnt break down the costs but specifies that £600,000 is set up and administration costs. Is there a chance that after all of the appeals and refunds it could actually lose money?

[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote:
The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.[/p][/quote]As it actually doesnt break down the costs but specifies that £600,000 is set up and administration costs. Is there a chance that after all of the appeals and refunds it could actually lose money?TheTruthHurts

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.

As it actually doesnt break down the costs but specifies that £600,000 is set up and administration costs. Is there a chance that after all of the appeals and refunds it could actually lose money?

Bearing in mind we were originally quoted that it would cost £120,000. It is quite a step up.

[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote:
The barmy closed bridge is a PR disaster for York on a national scale and schemes such as the above are a desperate attempt to curry favour with a critical public. With a large portion of the spoils having to be returned to the 'victims' on appeal there's not too much booty left anyway.[/p][/quote]As it actually doesnt break down the costs but specifies that £600,000 is set up and administration costs. Is there a chance that after all of the appeals and refunds it could actually lose money?[/p][/quote]Bearing in mind we were originally quoted that it would cost £120,000. It is quite a step up.powerwatt

The Lendal Bridge Folly is just a way for those who are supposed to represent the inhabitants to stab them in the back instead. The closure causes sever hardship for many citizens trying to get to hospital appointments etc. It causes more pollution as people are forced into longer car journeys. Pollution is also caused as drivers have to sit and wait at jams and prolonged traffic light changes etc. It is high time the city woke up to the devious methods used by the Council. They tell us it is for the good of York, please tell that to traders who are losing money due to the high parking fees in the City Centre and also the lower number of tourists. Obviously they can see the facts that citizens have been brainwashed into not seeing.

The Lendal Bridge Folly is just a way for those who are supposed to represent the inhabitants to stab them in the back instead. The closure causes sever hardship for many citizens trying to get to hospital appointments etc. It causes more pollution as people are forced into longer car journeys. Pollution is also caused as drivers have to sit and wait at jams and prolonged traffic light changes etc. It is high time the city woke up to the devious methods used by the Council. They tell us it is for the good of York, please tell that to traders who are losing money due to the high parking fees in the City Centre and also the lower number of tourists. Obviously they can see the facts that citizens have been brainwashed into not seeing.Dodger8

If the intention was to buy the permenent restriction implementation by reducing the car park fees the answer is and should be a definite no. The trial is about what happens on the remainder of the roads and it is not a good story so far.

Sounds like the sweetener has been soured.
If the intention was to buy the permenent restriction implementation by reducing the car park fees the answer is and should be a definite no. The trial is about what happens on the remainder of the roads and it is not a good story so far.YOUWILLDOASISAY

Also wondering why the light sequence at the end of Salisbury Rd has been altered to let 4 cars at a time - - yes a grand total of 4 to pass over Clifton Bridge at any one time. Traffic is now at the worst it has ever been in the Leeman Rd area with one afternoon last week (about 4.45) traffic queued from these lights to the NRM entrance at a standstill. What are they up to now???????

Also wondering why the light sequence at the end of Salisbury Rd has been altered to let 4 cars at a time - - yes a grand total of 4 to pass over Clifton Bridge at any one time. Traffic is now at the worst it has ever been in the Leeman Rd area with one afternoon last week (about 4.45) traffic queued from these lights to the NRM entrance at a standstill. What are they up to now???????Jiffy

Living in the area it took me 20 mins to get from the lights on Salisbury road to my house on Monday! Have already complained to my local councilor about this, His responce was that they have not received any complaints about the traffic increasing in the area!

Living in the area it took me 20 mins to get from the lights on Salisbury road to my house on Monday! Have already complained to my local councilor about this, His responce was that they have not received any complaints about the traffic increasing in the area!Salsaman

"The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."

Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.

"The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."
Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.Devils_advocate

Dodger8 has produced a marvellous name for this venture - 'The Lendal Bridge Folly;' love it. Perhaps we could get some more big yellow signs displaying 'THE LENDAL BRIDGE FOLLY - abandon £60 all who enter here (courtesy of Visit York).

Dodger8 has produced a marvellous name for this venture - 'The Lendal Bridge Folly;' love it. Perhaps we could get some more big yellow signs displaying 'THE LENDAL BRIDGE FOLLY - abandon £60 all who enter here (courtesy of Visit York).mmarshal

Devils_advocate wrote:
&quot;The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."

Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.

The council have never published a plan for what happens after the trial, but they obtained a closure Traffic Regulation Order lasting 18 months.

Since they keep saying the closure is not about raising money, I think they should prove it by suspending the fines once the trial is over, next week.

[quote][p][bold]Devils_advocate[/bold] wrote:
"The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."
Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.[/p][/quote]The council have never published a plan for what happens after the trial, but they obtained a closure Traffic Regulation Order lasting 18 months.
Since they keep saying the closure is not about raising money, I think they should prove it by suspending the fines once the trial is over, next week.WhyEver

The law is there to protect citizens, there are many reasons for it, I will suggest one:

Imagine a situation where a political party were elected to power, once in power an inept and morally corrupt group of individuals took over and spent money they did not have on schemes that did not serve the interests of those that put them in power. Well that inept and morally corrupt group of individuals might decide that if they could raise revenue to make up the shortfalls in cash. They might decide to raise taxes in some way or by doing something insane like closing 100 yards of the ring road and fining people for using that short section of road.

[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote:
A god idea and frankly whom would challenge it?[/p][/quote]The law is there to protect citizens, there are many reasons for it, I will suggest one:
Imagine a situation where a political party were elected to power, once in power an inept and morally corrupt group of individuals took over and spent money they did not have on schemes that did not serve the interests of those that put them in power. Well that inept and morally corrupt group of individuals might decide that if they could raise revenue to make up the shortfalls in cash. They might decide to raise taxes in some way or by doing something insane like closing 100 yards of the ring road and fining people for using that short section of road.eeoodares

Salsaman wrote:
Living in the area it took me 20 mins to get from the lights on Salisbury road to my house on Monday! Have already complained to my local councilor about this, His responce was that they have not received any complaints about the traffic increasing in the area!

Just the same as they failed to seek legal guidance on the dispersal of funds from the Alexander/Merrett Folly fiasco. Either that or they ignored it.

[quote][p][bold]Salsaman[/bold] wrote:
Living in the area it took me 20 mins to get from the lights on Salisbury road to my house on Monday! Have already complained to my local councilor about this, His responce was that they have not received any complaints about the traffic increasing in the area![/p][/quote]Just the same as they failed to seek legal guidance on the dispersal of funds from the Alexander/Merrett Folly fiasco. Either that or they ignored it.bolero

Devils_advocate wrote:
&quot;The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."

Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.

The council have never published a plan for what happens after the trial, but they obtained a closure Traffic Regulation Order lasting 18 months.

Since they keep saying the closure is not about raising money, I think they should prove it by suspending the fines once the trial is over, next week.

Expect at least another 2 months of the bridge remaining closed. No doubt there will be issues with the integrity of the evidence (or some such) so they have to gather more of it so the bridge will stay closed a bit longer for that, then once they have had bodged together the results they want they will present it to a cabinet of unelected politicians who will inform us that it's no longer a trial and is now permanent.

"When the formal trial finishes on 26 February 2014 the bridge restriction will remain in place whilst evaluation of the data and consultation responses is undertaken. This is to maintain consistency, it would be inappropriate to lift the restriction only to potentially reinstate it if the subsequent decision is to continue with the restriction.

The evidence will be collated following the end of the 6 month period and reported to Cabinet in the Spring (aiming for April 2014). Following this, Members will decide whether to end the restriction, make the restriction permanent (10:30am to 5pm only) or continue with the trial to gather and evaluate more data."

[quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Devils_advocate[/bold] wrote:
"The trial runs until the end of February, but the restrictions will remain in place while the council assesses its impact..."
Hang on - when was it decided that the restriction would remain in place after the trial period? And who decided it? They could spin it out for months to make a final decision so in reality the 'trial' could last for months more.[/p][/quote]The council have never published a plan for what happens after the trial, but they obtained a closure Traffic Regulation Order lasting 18 months.
Since they keep saying the closure is not about raising money, I think they should prove it by suspending the fines once the trial is over, next week.[/p][/quote]Expect at least another 2 months of the bridge remaining closed. No doubt there will be issues with the integrity of the evidence (or some such) so they have to gather more of it so the bridge will stay closed a bit longer for that, then once they have had bodged together the results they want they will present it to a cabinet of unelected politicians who will inform us that it's no longer a trial and is now permanent.
"When the formal trial finishes on 26 February 2014 the bridge restriction will remain in place whilst evaluation of the data and consultation responses is undertaken. This is to maintain consistency, it would be inappropriate to lift the restriction only to potentially reinstate it if the subsequent decision is to continue with the restriction.
The evidence will be collated following the end of the 6 month period and reported to Cabinet in the Spring (aiming for April 2014). Following this, Members will decide whether to end the restriction, make the restriction permanent (10:30am to 5pm only) or continue with the trial to gather and evaluate more data."
http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200174/plann
ing_and_building_con
trol/686/reinvigorat
e_york/3Rankled

I understood that CoYC City centre parking charges were sensibly higher, the closer one parked to the centre, to incentivise use of Park & Ride etc. There are already enough private operators who are undercutting this, without reducing CoYC's own charges. Remember the recent experiment and numerous complaints about having to drive round in circles looking for a space. Do we really want to go back to those bad old days.Or should I be a cynic and suggest that Local Election sweetners are in the offing?

I understood that CoYC City centre parking charges were sensibly higher, the closer one parked to the centre, to incentivise use of Park & Ride etc. There are already enough private operators who are undercutting this, without reducing CoYC's own charges. Remember the recent experiment and numerous complaints about having to drive round in circles looking for a space. Do we really want to go back to those bad old days.Or should I be a cynic and suggest that Local Election sweetners are in the offing?pedalling paul

Jiffy wrote:
Also wondering why the light sequence at the end of Salisbury Rd has been altered to let 4 cars at a time - - yes a grand total of 4 to pass over Clifton Bridge at any one time. Traffic is now at the worst it has ever been in the Leeman Rd area with one afternoon last week (about 4.45) traffic queued from these lights to the NRM entrance at a standstill. What are they up to now???????

I would imagine that it's another futile attempt to massage the chronic congestion on Water End, in this case probably by favouring traffic heading for Poppleton Road. At peak times, it's often backed up as far as Clifton Green, where frustrated drivers coming out of Water Lane then opt to ignore the box junction, and sometimes even the lights, thus reducing the junction to complete gridlock. Meanwhile, other motorists are feeding the tailback on Water End by bypassing the lights via the south side of Clifton Green, or by using residential streets as rat runs.. Before anyone says otherwise, the problem was there long before the Lendal Bridge closure. I was about to say that, if CoYC hadn't changed the timing of the Clifton Green lights in an attempt to appease drivers travelling the other way up Water End (who were the most vociferous moaners at the time), it would be even worse, as yet more traffic would be passing through the junction towards Poppleton Road at every change of the lights. But of course, as with all such tinkering, all that actually did was to shift the problem round the corner - where this afternoon there was an ever lengthening tailback up Shipton Road of cars wanting to turn right along Water End (incidentally, these drivers often obstruct the box junction at Rawcliffe Lane). The situation is quite similar to the current flooding in the south of England but with excess traffic instead of excess water: you might be able to prevent it swamping one area but it'll just overflow somewhere else. The problem is the volume of traffic. Any solution that doesn't reduce it is no solution at all.

[quote][p][bold]Jiffy[/bold] wrote:
Also wondering why the light sequence at the end of Salisbury Rd has been altered to let 4 cars at a time - - yes a grand total of 4 to pass over Clifton Bridge at any one time. Traffic is now at the worst it has ever been in the Leeman Rd area with one afternoon last week (about 4.45) traffic queued from these lights to the NRM entrance at a standstill. What are they up to now???????[/p][/quote]I would imagine that it's another futile attempt to massage the chronic congestion on Water End, in this case probably by favouring traffic heading for Poppleton Road. At peak times, it's often backed up as far as Clifton Green, where frustrated drivers coming out of Water Lane then opt to ignore the box junction, and sometimes even the lights, thus reducing the junction to complete gridlock. Meanwhile, other motorists are feeding the tailback on Water End by bypassing the lights via the south side of Clifton Green, or by using residential streets as rat runs.. Before anyone says otherwise, the problem was there long before the Lendal Bridge closure. I was about to say that, if CoYC hadn't changed the timing of the Clifton Green lights in an attempt to appease drivers travelling the other way up Water End (who were the most vociferous moaners at the time), it would be even worse, as yet more traffic would be passing through the junction towards Poppleton Road at every change of the lights. But of course, as with all such tinkering, all that actually did was to shift the problem round the corner - where this afternoon there was an ever lengthening tailback up Shipton Road of cars wanting to turn right along Water End (incidentally, these drivers often obstruct the box junction at Rawcliffe Lane). The situation is quite similar to the current flooding in the south of England but with excess traffic instead of excess water: you might be able to prevent it swamping one area but it'll just overflow somewhere else. The problem is the volume of traffic. Any solution that doesn't reduce it is no solution at all.Caecilius

Something has been done at water end/salisbury road! the traffic in leeman road is terrible now, how can the council force traffic to stand still in a large urban area choking people who live on the leeman road one way system!

Something has been done at water end/salisbury road! the traffic in leeman road is terrible now, how can the council force traffic to stand still in a large urban area choking people who live on the leeman road one way system!yorkguy

pedalling paul wrote:
I understood that CoYC City centre parking charges were sensibly higher, the closer one parked to the centre, to incentivise use of Park &amp; Ride etc. There are already enough private operators who are undercutting this, without reducing CoYC's own charges. Remember the recent experiment and numerous complaints about having to drive round in circles looking for a space. Do we really want to go back to those bad old days.Or should I be a cynic and suggest that Local Election sweetners are in the offing?

Crikey, Pedalling Paul is talking sense...

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
I understood that CoYC City centre parking charges were sensibly higher, the closer one parked to the centre, to incentivise use of Park & Ride etc. There are already enough private operators who are undercutting this, without reducing CoYC's own charges. Remember the recent experiment and numerous complaints about having to drive round in circles looking for a space. Do we really want to go back to those bad old days.Or should I be a cynic and suggest that Local Election sweetners are in the offing?[/p][/quote]Crikey, Pedalling Paul is talking sense...eeoodares

“We are more expensive than some of our regional competitors, but are very competitive with other historic cities which have constrained parking in the city-centre and constrained traffic networks.”

constrained:- To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige

I always said they were bullying those who choose or have to travel by car.

Interesting choice of words from Mr Merrett
“We are more expensive than some of our regional competitors, but are very competitive with other historic cities which have constrained parking in the city-centre and constrained traffic networks.”
constrained:- To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige
I always said they were bullying those who choose or have to travel by car.strangebuttrue?

Lawyers never thwarted anything, all they did was to point out the obvious, that trying to channel money away from the disastrous Lendal Bridge saga would be considered illegal.

To be honest I am surprised that it hasn't all been handed over to the 20's plenty mob.

Then again, maybe that will be next on the agenda?

Right, they couldn`t have `thwarted` anything because COYC knew all along this was the law, as everyone does. Merrett hasn`t explored that option at all and who on earth is implying this could ever have been the case.
Smoke and mirrors.
` Oh we have tried to do something nice for all you council tax payers from our ill gotten gains, seen as 80% of you are so p***** off with what we`ve done. It`s not our fault, we hoped you would all love the 20s plenty and closing your roads without a mandate`
At least give us some credit.

[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Lawyers thwart York parking subsidy plan[/quote]
Lawyers never thwarted anything, all they did was to point out the obvious, that trying to channel money away from the disastrous Lendal Bridge saga would be considered illegal.
To be honest I am surprised that it hasn't all been handed over to the 20's plenty mob.
Then again, maybe that will be next on the agenda?[/p][/quote]Right, they couldn`t have `thwarted` anything because COYC knew all along this was the law, as everyone does. Merrett hasn`t explored that option at all and who on earth is implying this could ever have been the case.
Smoke and mirrors.
` Oh we have tried to do something nice for all you council tax payers from our ill gotten gains, seen as 80% of you are so p***** off with what we`ve done. It`s not our fault, we hoped you would all love the 20s plenty and closing your roads without a mandate`
At least give us some credit.inthesticks

calmdownyork wrote:
When the bridge was first built under the 'Lendal Bridge and York Improvement Act' it was a toll bridge. Therein lies the solution.

That or a congestion charge.

Of course,so people with small or low incomes get stung again.

[quote][p][bold]calmdownyork[/bold] wrote:
When the bridge was first built under the 'Lendal Bridge and York Improvement Act' it was a toll bridge. Therein lies the solution.
That or a congestion charge.[/p][/quote]Of course,so people with small or low incomes get stung again.courier46